tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg August 19, 2015 9:00pm-10:01pm EDT
>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we begin with a look at the 2016 presidential election, donald trump's campaign for the republican nomination continues to surge, 24% in a recent poll of gop voters followed by jeb bush and ben carson. hillary clinton remains under abuse for use of a personal e-mail server. matt dowd recently spent time talking with voters at the iowa state fair, where they all work. he is an analyst for abc news and he joins me now from one of our favorite cities, austin, texas.
welcome, sir. matt: thank you. great to be here. charlie: how was the iowa state fair? matt: i have been their multiple times to help a candidate and now recently observing the candidates. it was quite an unbelievable situation with hillary there and donald trump there, who just added a complete circus atmosphere to it. but i was actually fascinated by what a bunch of his supporters had to say in the course of it. much different than i think many of us suspected or analyzed before. charlie: what did they say? matt: there's much less anger to them. it's not ideology. it is not driven by issues. the only issue that is consistent is immigration. that is the most consistent issue. it is a level of frustration and desire for somebody they think speaks their mind, somebody they think is strong. is bombast and bravado, which many thought was a liability, is
an asset to these folks. they want to believe in something big in the united states, big person, big power, big strength. for now they think donald trump best represents that. charlie: what would happen to slow it down? matt: what none of the other candidates will do will impede him at this point in time. the only thing that can prevent donald trump from getting the republican nomination is his own mouth and whether he says something over time that finally adds up to too much for the voters, or he does not add enough meat to the bone of his policies. the voters support him, they love him. they adore him. but they worry about what he might say and at some point in time they want him to add meat to the bones. i think the other thing that will compound those things is time. we are not having the caucuses this week or next month. we are having them 170 days from now. there's a lot of time to keep
this huge, bright firework burning the donald trump is and a lot of that has the potential to dissipate over time. i think the problem for the gop is nobody is even in his atmosphere of ability to connect with people and the bright way he shines in every event he does. charlie: who is most likely? though they are not there. is it some other non-politician like ben carson or jeb bush? if bush ever gets his campaign rolling. if the has the capacity and support from the broad base of the party and economic resources. matt: it's not jeb. i think jeb bush is on the verge , unless he does very well in the debate next month -- he's on the verge of it doesn't matter how much money he has to spend, it can be very difficult to win the nomination. his inevitability is gone. these voters, the last person
they would pick of the 17 is jeb bush when they talk to him. it could be an outsider like ben carson or carly fiorina, but it also could be someone like john kasich. who in their mind, they have not heard a lot of. in some views, he's the governor of ohio, he is viewed as a little bit of an outsider. i think if john kasich could step it up and meet the voters in a stronger, more direct way, he has the potential for it area . right now these voters will not vote for jeb bush and they want an outsider, whether it is carson, fiorina, or someone like kasich, time will tell. charlie: suppose the nominee is john kasich and suppose his running mate is marco rubio. there you have ohio and florida. does that mean the chances, republicans against the presumptive nomination against hillary clinton is greatly increased? matt: let's assume that donald trump does not run as a third-party and behaves himself
in the course of the general election. i think that if someone like john kasich is the nominee and marco rubio is the vice presidential nominee, they would be a huge advantage against somebody like hillary clinton in the general election. for many different reasons. you point out the states, florida and ohio. you can point out the demographics. you have marco rubio, a latino on the ticket. i think you go and look at the circumstances of the country right now and where hillary clinton stands. people don't trust her, they don't like her, and they disapprove of the current president. right now in that circumstance , with the right nominee, and republicans are the odds on to win the white house. in the course of this, but they have to nominate the right nominee. charlie: can donald trump beat hillary clinton? matt: it's really difficult. it is a possibility. i've never like to say never. it's a possibility but he's probably the least electable in the general election.
charlie: is immigration a bigger issue than you imagine in the republican party because of the way it's been used by donald trump? matt: it is not surprising that immigration is a big issue but it stands for something more than the issue. when you talk to the folks, they have wanted something done about the borders. but it stands for something about our country and in their way they think the country has been lost in some ways over the last 10 years or 20 years. really this is a way of , recapturing our country. so immigration is a telling issue for a bigger concern and a sense of where they think the country is, and losing the country they thought they always wanted. that is what immigration really stands for to them. charlie: what do you make of bernie sanders? matt: is the opposite side of the trump coin for the democratic party. on a an outsider, taking very dominant candidate and hillary clinton. i think bernie sanders could
easily win iowa, new hampshire, and complicate the process along the way. i still think hillary clinton's odds on to win the nomination but bernie sanders shows on the republican side that a candidate tot touches and has a way convey a populist message connects really well in this country right now. charlie: if hillary clinton last iowa, then lost new hampshire, would that bring in joe biden? matt: he is going to have to make a decision. because of the way you look at delegates. he has to come in by the middle of october. he has to decide he's in this race to set up the process. i think if joe biden thinks hillary clinton will lose iowa and new hampshire, he figures i can make a play and win south carolina because bernie sanders is very difficult in south carolina. that is the calculation if joe biden wants to win, bernie sanders is able to do well in the first states. it becomes a contest with joe
biden is the more dominance, more establishment oriented candidate in the course of other primaries in bigger states along the way. charlie: what is likely to be the defining issue or theme of this campaign in 2016? matt: i think donald trump is closest to the idea, not the issues, but closest to -- there is a sense that we have lost america's greatness. and thelost our sense way we convey ourselves internationally. so i think that combination of can we remake or remodel the american dream in a way that people can believe again. i think that is the overarching dynamic in this. i think there's a lot of struggles and a lot of issues going on and all these sorts of things, the economy and all of that, but i think that's really
the big value or the big vision that people want presented. and donald trump is doing it in an awkward, bulldogy way, but he has probably come closest to where the country is on how do we remake the american dream. charlie: his theme is make america great, i guess. matt: donald trump is the floyd mayweather of politics. he has the brand, he has the hat, he has the entertainment value. he has all of those sorts of things. i think donald trump, the biggest thing is can he be disciplined enough and can he put more substance on the bone in the course of this time, and will the republican establishment over time permit him to win the state that he possibly could win, there's no question in my mind that there is now a possibility the donald trump could be the gop nominee. charlie: thank you. great to see you.
divisions they have caused. i am pleased to have him back at this table. welcome. remind me, the title of the book, about your dad and your own history. roger: "ghosts of memory in a jewish family." charlie: it was incredible. give me the sense of what this debate, which is ongoing with lots of pressure and lots of people trying to impact the debate, people from beyond the united states. clearly we know that prime , minister netanyahu feels strongly about this and i take him at his word that he believes this is not good for israel, it is a threat to israel. but you are seeing all kinds of pressure being used almost more than debate. roger: this is the most divisive issue in the american jewish community for a long time for it even within families, you have fiery disagreements as to whether this deal is overall
good for israel, good for the united states, good for the middle east, or it's not. and on the one hand you have aipac lobbying heavily against the deal. on the other, you have the smaller budget the much more , liberal organization. it is in that context, and my column is partly about that, the prime minister netanyahu weighed in once again with the jewish community here and in essence said, this deal will give iran hundreds of bombs within years. wild hyperbole, that is not true. said the deal would allow iran to have its yellow cake and eat it. again, just using these facile lines. this deal is not perfect. in diplomacy you never get perfection. iran has mastered the natural fuel cycle. the question is what do you do
about it. i think secretary kerry and the president have tried to come up with a deal that ring fences this capacity. that in my view would be in israel interest. charlie: why don't you think the prime minister sees it that way and a significant part of the israeli community as well as the american jewish community? roger: the islamic republic has said violent and unconscionable things about israel over many years. charlie: i am not making a political point. isn't it important for israel and people who love israel to take seriously people who say they want to destroy it? roger: it is important to take seriously that kind of unconscionable language. on the other hand, iran, the islamic republic, has survived since the reagan revolution, since 1979, by showing itself in
reality despite this vile rhetoric to be a fairly prudent power. and the fact is that in recent years, iran has been able to install more and more centrifuges, get more and more enriched uranium, take its nuclear program which it says not very credibly is not aimed at a bomb, much further. and the only effective break that has been put on that has been president obama's diplomacy, which has ensured that iran has gotten rid of much of its enriched uranium, cuts way back the number of centrifuges and instills a series of rigorous international inspections that did not exist previously. this is to reverse things. over the past two years since the first preliminary deal -- people say iran will cheat. well it may, who knows? but the fact is, over the past few years it did not cheat. over this agreement there is
nothing that says the united states or its allies cannot take any action that they deem appropriate, including military action, if iran reneged. and the united states remains free on divisive issues like iranian support for hezbollah or hamas to continue to pressure iran to stop that behavior. charlie: to try to tie them together would be impossible. roger: and are you better off with some framework that condemns the united states and iran to a difficult at hostile relationship for the next 15 years? are you better placed to be able to talk about these issues with that, or without that? and if you are without that -- look this deal was not made by , the united states, it was made by the united states, china, russia, germany, france, and britain.
those are not a small or unserious powers. charlie: without their support of the sanctions, would they have been effective as they were? roger: no. and if this deal is rejected, which is unlikely in the end, nor is it going to be approved in an ideal way, the sanctions regime would fall apart. because china, russia would conclude that the united states is unserious about an agreement that has been two years in the making. charlie: when you look at the president's argument that there was no other way, and the people who criticize us have no other argument other than military force, is the president right about that? is there no other way that you could have wrought about an iranian ejection of weaponize to
nuclear power -- rejection of weaponized nuclear power? roger: i don't support complete dismantlement. i don't think complete dismantlement was ever on the table. iran is proud of the nuclear technology. it says it's not for use as a bomb, it is not as a signatory of the iaea. it has a right to develop this technology. and i think if you argued for dismantlement you are arguing for war. iranians remember for a long time that oil was not controlled by themselves, it was controlled by the united states and britain. when the prime minister came along in the 1950's and said, we actually think this oil should be ours, we instituted a coup. the nuclear technology is a little like oil 60 years ago. it is something that iran feels that it has a right to develop.
and of course, it looks around and sees nuclear around israel, pakistan, india. russia. it is not in a neighborhood where everybody is without nuclear weapons. much to the contrary. iran is not any of those countries and we need to stop it from developing a nuclear weapon. there is no question about that. if necessary we need to use military force to stop them. charlie: the president would use nuclear force if he felt they were going to come close to a nuclear weapon? roger: not only does president, but any subsequent president that i can imagine, if the islamic republic is still in place and still using the kind of language it has used about israel and is still supporting hezbollah and hamas in the way it has, if that islamic republic
was still in place and we had incontrovertible proof that they are about to make a nuclear weapon, i believe that any president would use force. what this deal achieves is to put that off hopefully forever, but at least 15 years. a lot of things can happen. charlie: even if they use military weapons today it would just delay. it would not necessarily destroyed. roger: what would happen? iran would race for a bomb. it would tear up its agreements with the iaea. and at most it might put back the program for a couple years. i think it is close to a no-brainer. plus, we have been at war in afghanistan and iraq. in between them lies a country called iran. do we want to have been at war across a swathe of 2500 miles and then try to convince the
muslims of the world that we have nothing against them? i do not think that will play very well. charlie: could the united states have negotiated a better deal? is there any reason is there any , argument that suggests that somehow we had more leverage than we exercised and we should have exercised it? do you see any merit in any of those arguments, that this administration was too quick to make the deal? roger: look in diplomacy, it's a , question of what the you want, what do they want, and what can we agree that we both want. i wasn't in there and neither of us were sitting at the table. i think our president is tough and i think secretary kerry is tough. and i think what we have -- you might wish if there is a suspect site we can get in there faster than the maximum 24 days that is now.
program, maybele we could have wished for more. but i believe over two years of negotiation, with a very serious diplomats in the room, this is a compromise that gets us a lot. all the 20% enriched uranium goes. the vast majority of the centrifuges. charlie: critics of the deal say well after 10 years they will have an opportunity because this is a 10 year deal or 12 years and even though the president says certain things remain in effect, others will argue the iranians will then have a chance after 10 years to go forward without sanctions and without impediments. roger: i don't know. charlie, in 1979 we did not know the berlin wall would fall 10 years later. in 2001 we did not know the arab
erupt inas going to ira 2011. anybody who says they know what iran will look like -- the supreme leader is well into his 70's. there is no succession plan. you can make a cogent argument that the likelihood is through more contact with the west, which is what the vast majority of the population of iran craves, most young iranians are pro-western, that with a relationship where iran, the only top 20 economy in the world is not integrated with the global economy, you can make a cogent argument that the likelihood is over the next 15 years you can see some softening of the regime and as this new generation rises to power, an iran that is more to our liking. can i prove that? can anybody prove that? no. we cannot. but i think that is a reasonable bet. and if iran goes in the other direction, all options are open. charlie: tell me how you see the possibilities of a coalition
against isis today with the overlay of the shia-sunni conflict. roger: isis is a terrible threat to the west. we have already seen the bombings and the attacks in paris, brussels, to lose, everywhere else. these vile beheadings, mass rapes, this medievalist interpretation of certain verses of the koran. the united states is weary. we have been at war in iraq, in afghanistan. we are looking for allies in the region to take on isis. many of the most fervent isis members see their main mission as attacking and defeating the shia, defeating iran. so iran has a common interest with us in fighting isis.
it does not want isis to take over iraq. i don't have any illusions that this will transform itself into an alliance between the united states and iran to fight isis, but i think the two countries can help each other. that is a plausible scenario. and i think in the context of a nuclear deal, in that context that becomes more likely. and would that be a good thing? yes. but there is so much mistrust built up over 36 years since the revolution between the united states and iran. these things will not happen overnight. but is it possible there will be a u.s. embassy in tehran and an iranian embassy in washington 10, 15 years from now? i think it is possible. charlie: there is one in havana now. roger: that is right. why not? charlie you get the feeling : there is something at play. roger: i think everybody agrees
that the dismantlement of syria, as a country, 4 million plus refugees. it is a disaster. and anybody looking at the legacy of the obama presidency, this will be one of the negatives on the foreign policy side. i will not get into what might have been done before. but i think going forward, if russia and the united states can begin to work together and there is a way to move the assad regime out, that would be -- there are lots of areas in iraq and afghanistan where iran can be helpful. and in syria. whether it will be remains to be seen. as you know iran is divided , between the hardline faction of the revolutionary guard and the population in general, which i think generally wants stronger contact with the west.
charlie: with the world. roger: yes and probably many , would like over time to see the system of government and iran at least evolve, and i think on all those fronts having a deal is better than not having a deal. the deal is not perfect. charlie: you are talking about the nuclear deal? i'm more interested -- let's assume the deal passes. one way or the other. roger: you need a 25% defection of congressional democrats for that to be an override of the president's veto. i think a republican dominated house and senate is going to vote a resolution of disapproval. but in a way that is pain-free. i mean they can do that without , serious consequences for american diplomacy in the world because it will be vetoed and there aren't enough votes,
i don't believe despite all this , lobbying, for an override. charlie: does this fight change the relationship between this administration and the administration in israel for the remainder of this president's term? roger: i don't think it changes it fundamentally because i think the alliance is strong, very strong, and that will not change. i also think that relations between the president and prime minister netanyahu are bad. they have been bad for a long time. this may make these relations marginally worse. i think the president is exasperated by this habit of prime minister netanyahu -- we see it in the webcasts to the jewish community, this habit of trying to go around the president, and during the last election it was clear that prime minister netanyahu favored mitt romney. so there are elements that have confuted to this mistrust between the president and prime
minister. charlie: if he's not going to take an action that does anything to lessen the military power of israel -- roger: on the contrary. charlie: people in the military establishment. they give him credit for that. is there any way the president could take out some sense of disdain for the way the prime minister has acted? roger: the only way is a way that is being quietly talked about, is for the accord that the united states had in mind for an israeli-palestinian peace during the last intense round of negotiations was secretary kerry, with a territorial line running roughly at the 1967 divide. for that to be published in some form and then contained in a resolution in the united nations security council, that the
united states would not veto. in other words, that israel would realize that if it carries on on the current course of expanding settlements, on the whole not being serious about a peace with the palestinians and the palestinian leadership is plenty at fault too, if israel continues down that path it may no longer be able to rely on the consistent u.s. veto of anything in the united nations deemed to be against israel's interests, as those interests are defined by netanyahu. so i think that is the one area where the president could have leverage. it is conceivable his last year in office he might be prepared to use it. charlie: you do give some indication there is some thought about that because you have seen what other western nations have done with respect to the palestinians. roger: that is the one idea bubbling beneath the surface.
charlie: you have said in a column, germany's debt to europe can never be repaid. it is the real and deepest one. that obviously has to do with the holocaust. roger: yes. and the indications are with respect to germany and europe and germany and greece are what? roger: i just wanted to remind people that in the end, the european union is about war and peace. it grew out of the ruins of 1945. it is important that this time of fragility in the european union, that it be remembered what happened in europe and with the european union has been able to overcome by creating a borderless europe. i think there is even an implication for what we have been talking about today, because of the holocaust, it is
absolutely vital that the jewish people in israel, that we be assured that israel can defend itself in any circumstances. and the question with this deal, this iran nuclear deal, is this a way to reduce the threat to israel? because the nuclear know-how that iranians have anyway is going to be put in a place where it cannot be used for the development of a bomb. people are going to differ from that. my own believe is that the outcome of the negotiations should be backed and approved. i also think iran is a country with a lot of potential, and we should explore the potential. charlie: thank you for coming. good to see you. you went to london to live. and now you have come back. what happened? you didn't like the british?
charlie: the film "learning to drive" is a story of an unlikely friendship between two new yorkers. the screenplay is based on a 2002 "new yorker" magazine essay. here is the trailer for the film. >> joining me for today's topic, book critic wendy shields. >> always a pleasure. i heard about you. >> every seven years it comes over him. he gets restless and does something juvenile. >> i'm not going home with you. who is it? >> let's have fun. >> it's about time you started driving. >> where do they find these skanks? >> teach yourself to see everything. the biggest problem is everyone
else. you can't always trust people to behave properly. >> ain't that the truth. >> what does a woman like for a gift? >> i don't know. candy, flowers? >> she is from my village where i grew up. my sister picked her out for me. >> i would like something to take my mind off my mind. >> that is why i do yoga. >> i do ambien. >> when a man marries a woman, they become one spirit. >> i do not know what i believe. why do you teach driving? >> for a better job i would have to take off my turban, shave off my beard. but this is how i know who i am. i never learned to cook. my mother would cook for me. then there was half a world between us.
so i make my own food. no point. >> learning to drive. >> that's a scary thought. >> it's time to discuss road rage. it doesn't matter what is going on in your life out there. when you are at the wheel of a car, that is all there is. your life right now. charlie: joining me now is the director and the film's star. sir ben kingsley and patricia clarkson. how did this start? you were at the 2014 toronto film festival. my impression is you have known about this for a while. >> yes. nine years of my life. i read the essay. and i was captivated by it. it resonated with me and stayed with me.
just serendipitously someone came to me and said, they are making a movie about this. i said, oh my god. i know this story. i love this story. i love wendy. so i became attached, and nine years later, we got the film made with these two extraordinary people. charlie: you were in at what point? ben: i read it a while ago. i read it shortly after a film i had done and i still had the residue of this character "house of sand and fog." we spoke about that here. that was the plight of the immigrant coming to america under unfortunate circumstances, both of them were exiled due to regime changes in our countries.
and i felt it was a little too close to something i was trying to let go of. charlie: what was that? ben: some kind of angst, sadness that was not quite dissolved. then in happier times my darling wife daniela, i think for that. in happier times the script came to me and i felt more capable of breathing something into it that was life enhancing rather than dour/ . charlie: is this about friendship? is it about independence? is it about ? new life? what is it? the story of you playing a driver. she is recently divorced or you
happen to be in the car when this happens. the two of you connect and you come up with the idea of driving lessons. patricia: i through a set of personal circumstances decide to learn to drive at 50. charlie: your husband had been driving for you. patricia which is a common : occurrence in new york, these powerful people at the top of their game but they have never learned to drive, which is a very tri-state area situation. it is stunning how many people don't drive in this town. and so wendy decides to learn to drive. she wants to see her daughter in a faraway place, vermont. ben: when i am offered a wonderful piece of work as this is, i really love to reduce it down to some metaphor that i can carry in my pocket. and for me, it is the myth of
the eternal ferry man. you get onto his little fairy on erry on one bank of the river, you disembark on the other bank and somehow your molecules have been rearranged. you are not sure how or why, but the ferry man is left you with something. it's more than a journey from one bank to another. there is something life enhancing about either his silence, his stillness, the way he maneuvers the boat across the water. he's taking you to the new. yes. charlie: the last time she was here, you and i riffed together. it's good to see you again.
sabel: good to see you too. charlie: how did you get into this film? sabel: patricia gave me the "new yorker" story. i was living the same thing. i was in the middle of a breakup from a partner of many years. i did not know how to drive. i love the story, and the story teach me something very simple, this is not the end of the world, ok, he is sleeping with another woman, what are we going to do. patricia: one thing that stayed with me is appreciation of what we have. but that we have to look up, and we forget to take in the good things we have and we forget to look around us and that is why the driving metaphor, of course . charlie: you work into this post-9/11 america, and we see the sense of discrimination that can exist in a time of fear. patricia yes. ben: ironically it was the
sikh taxi drivers after 9/11 who turned off all their meters and asked passersby where do you want to go, it will help you find your loved one. it was extraordinary. it is a consistent sikh behavior. it is about the other. charlie: did you look into that because you were preparing for this role? ben: no. when i was filming gandhi, i had a sikh bodyguard driver. he was my ferry man. all through the trauma and difficulty and joy of that extraordinary experience in india, he was there, my constant, my driver, back of his head. i was sitting in the back of his ambassador car. and seeing his turban gently sway from side to side. after the hardest day shooting, glorious day, as i manage to get back into his car he drove through this massive crowd, looked at my face in the rearview mirror and said, well done, sir.
that's all he said. and that stayed in my heart. patricia: this is what he brought every day to the set. to see him was very moving. to see him in this beautiful turban and is incredibly graceful, calm, powerful man. i have often thought in life, i need that. please. charlie: to help us get to the next place. there's also this, the arranged marriage idea. ben: it was a lovely irony in the film, a desperate attempt to arrange her marriage by her sister, by her close relatives so that just as in the west are
our close relatives like to match make, so in the punjab, closer relatives like to match make. charlie: some make the argument that family knows you better than you know yourself, and you should entrust some of that to them. ben: perhaps wendy's sister could ascribe to the same argument. [laughter] charlie: let's take a look at this scene. this is giving wendy a driving lesson. >> put your eyes at the middle of the lane. your peripheral vision sees all the rest. >> osama! i thought we killed you! >> shut up. does that happen to you often? >> every day, people try to push your buttons. you don't engage with them, especially when you drive. don't lean on the horn.
>> i don't understand why men have to do that. wag their balls in your face. >> is time to discuss road rage. sabel: when some guy in the accident scene -- why he doesn't react? i said, for me the most admirable thing is the grace with, he take it and he doesn't let this thing affect him. for me that is a big lesson. patricia: he is such a beautiful internal warrior. charlie: what is wendy teaching him? sabel: there is another world, there is a world of love. i think the possibility of love she opens for him, it's going to stay with him and it's going to help him to be with jasmine.
i think at the end of the day -- patricia this is such a profound : film about adult friendship, true, real. charlie: and male-female. patricia friendship, real : friendship. and the limitations that has. charlie: you saw this and 10 years later you get to make this and you said you needed the 10 years in between to be able to play wendy. because you had to face some adversity, disappointment? patricia: a lot of changes in my life, a lot of loss and love and ups and downs and adversities. that all came partial. there were these packages i could carry on my back as i traveled through wendy. when i was first attached to
this project, i was 10 years younger, nine years younger. nine years later i arrived to play this part. and i thought, yes, i'm ready now. i'm here. i know what this is. i have no more doubt. i know exactly what her life entails. and i understood it in a deep, organic way, in a way i didn't. charlie: what have you made, eight movies? sabel: 12 now? i know. charlie: it impresses or depresses? sabel: impresses. my depression is when i see all the films i want to do and maybe not able to do. charlie: why not?
sabel: life is short. i'm planning to direct even with a walker and no teeth. and i'm going to say, action. charlie: how long did it take to make this movie? sabel: the actors shoot five weeks. charlie: some movies it takes long just to get to the shoot. sabel: i was ready to do it 10 years ago, nine years ago. but you know -- charlie: have you grown in the last 10 years? sabel: not at all. i'm trying to avoid to grow up. [laughter] charlie: is there a common theme to the films you like to make? sabel: my main thing is -- intimacy. it is what happens when two people are alone, what happens there, what is going on, what kind of links? very, very different people. charlie: this is a scene in which he talks to wendy about
his own life. >> here is your reward? >> a masters? >> i was a university professor like my father. >> why do you teach driving? >> for a better job i would have to take off my turban, shave off my beard. people think i look dangerous. but this is how i know who im i am. and here it is too easy to forget. >> do you ever get back and visit? >> i can never go home to india. it's part of political asylum. i could not get to see my dead before he passed away last year. i missed my mother's funeral too. , but i was in prison there. >> why? >> there is no justice for sikhs. >> how long were you in prison? >> long time. charlie: why does it take us so long to learn so much about the people we care about?
she is having to pull it out of him, yes? this is wendy bonding with her daughter. >> thank you for helping, but i think you have to get back on the road. you have a long drive. >> i don't think i'm going to go back. >> what? >> i love farming, but i was mainly there to be with this guy and suddenly he decided to go back to dartmouth, so i'm all alone and all my friends are gone. i'm just so embarrassed. can i just stay here with you? >> i would love that. i would so love that. but you can't.
if you moving here it would be in the spirit of failure and that is deadly. you have to see this through. you have to go back to vermont and harvest your -- off. sabel: what is funny when you see these scenes -- i immediately thought about a moment we did it. all i can see is the lollipop melting. and you are like, this lollipop is melting. it's very beautiful. it goes very well with your dress. patricia i had the popsicle in : my hand. we had to have 47 popsicles because they kept melting. charlie: you learn to drive when you were older. patricia yes. sabel: i learned to drive in l.a. i know how to drive and not how
to park. our next time together is going to be learning how to park. patricia: she is behind the camera. she is the operator. she is right there with you. it is the most intimate work you will ever do. charlie: wonderful feeling. patricia it's a beautiful : feeling. it gives you solace. she's right there for you. sabel: it is like you are seeing things like, oh my god, penis. you live with the camera, you move away. charlie: are you taking the summer off? it is almost over. patricia: i going to take a am break. i just finished the play. i'm in the middle of this. big press junket for our film and then i'm going to lie in bed. charlie: when you are in a play with bradley cooper, are you seeing up close what it means to be famous today?
patricia yes. : you see it every day, and how well he handles it, it's beautiful to watch. he has such grace. how he navigates every day is astonishing. charlie: and you, my dear? sabel: i'm going to do a film called "the bookshop" based on a -- it is set in england in 1959 and it's about a woman opening of a bookshop in a tiny village. charlie: "learning to drive" hits the theaters august 21, friday. thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪
♪ rishaad: it is thursday, the 20th of august and this is "trending business." ♪ rishaad: heading to mom by an sydni the -- mumbai in sydney this hour. out of china, and when demand for commodities are certainly not helping. and oil extending its decline through six-year lows. crude could drop to $32 a barrel. reward, the president
buys a big chunk of stock. he says he is looking at the future with confidence. do follow me on twitter. let's go straight to the markets, as far as hong kong and shanghai are concerned. . juliette: we are seeing the asian region follow that downturn we saw in europe. clear back of those indications that will be a rate hike in september. of course, that oil price and a 6.5 year low. s&p down by 1.6 -- 1.26%. in shanghai, the market down 1.5% following a big rebound we saw coming your yesterday.